OT Re: John Esak APPROVED!!! Download the Free Blio e-Reader, Today!

[Bill Campbell]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Fairlight wrote:
>>From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Bob Rasmussen shouted:
>> 
>> What a strange (and wrong) idea! You greatly underestimate humankind's 
>> ability to damage the planet, and greatly overestimate our ability to 
>> rebuild it. Will we be able to recreate coral reefs in the laboratory, to 
>> take one small example? 
>
>Just to draw a distinction...  There's a difference between provable (and
>proven) human-induced species extinction, and the myth that is
>Anthropogenic Global Warming.  One is real, the other is simply bad (even
>falsified) science, backed by near-religious levels of scientific dogma,
>all used to prop up a threat that serves to further the agendas of economic
>control, third-world population control, and to line the pocketbooks of
>those with a vested interest.
>
>Likewise, if you study nuclear power...  Chernobyl aside...

Chernobyl isn't an example of nuclear power gone wrong, but of
human hubris, and gross stupidity.  As Robert G. Williscroft, an
ex-NOAA scientist and former officer on U.S. nuclear subs, wrote
in his book ``The Chicken Little Agenda'', the Chernobyl failure
was only possible because every safety system had been disabled
so they could try to change fuel without shutting the reactor
down.  They had tried several times without disabling the
safeties, but couldn't do it.

One of the best examples of irony I've ever seen was at a concert
at Wolftrap with Pete Seegar and Arlo Guthrie in which they
followed the obligatory anti-nuke song with ``Dark as a Dungeon''
which is about coal mining.  Far more people are injured or die
of coal mining related factors in a year than have in the U.S.
nuclear power industry since its inception.  If I'm not mistaken,
the fatalaties related to nuclear power in the U.S. have been
construction related, not related to ongoing operations.

>There's a huge difference between provable, tangible effects (extinctions,
>mercury in water supplies, etc.) which causative actions need to be halted,
>and scare-tactic fictions propped up by "experts" that serve only to better
>the interests of the rich.
>
>In short, there are legitimate things we shouldn't do, and I agree
>shouldn't go full steam ahead on.
>
>On the other hand, there are a bunch of things that we're being told to
>change our lifestyles to accomodate, that -very- likely aren't even
>realistic factors.
>
>Michael Crichton made an excellent point during one of his speeches in the
>last few years.  He said that science by consensus isn't science at all.
>And he's right.  As many people can agree with and support a theory as want
>to.  At one time, scientific consensus said the earth was flat.  That
>obviously didn't pan out.  The "consensus" behind AGW doesn't make that
>theory any more valid--and the -actual-, unmolested data shows that AGW
>isn't actually a factor.  A consensus, even of experts, is not science,
>it's guesswork and opinion.  The facts are the facts, and don't require a
>consensus--they are what they are.

The best books I've read on the subject of AGW are by real
scientists in the field and include:

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years''
Dennis T. Avery & S. Fred Singer

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science
Ian Plimer

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by
Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
Patrick J. Michaels

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:   bill at celestial.com  Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/  PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
Voice:          (206) 236-1676  Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
Fax:            (206) 232-9186  Skype: jwccsllc (206) 855-5792

Great men are almost always bad men -- Lord Acton